Thursday, February 28, 2013

People sometimes obsess over the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks that use things such as chemical weapons, electromagnetic pulses or dirty bombs. Yet they tend to discount the less exciting but very real threat posed by fire, even though fire kills thousands of people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from fire, while according to the Global Terrorism Database an average of 7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are also instances in which fire is used as a weapon in a terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and embassy communications officer Sean Smith, the two diplomats killed in the attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, did not die from gunfire or even rocket-propelled grenade strikes but from smoke inhalation. This fact was not lost on the U.S. Department of State Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack. In an interview published by Reuters on Feb. 24, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the head of the Accountability Review Board, said more attention should be paid to the threat fire poses to diplomatic posts.

Fire can be deadly and destructive. But whether a fire is intentionally set, as in the Benghazi example above, or is the result of an accident or negligence, there are some practical steps individuals can take to protect themselves.Fire as a Weapon

The use of fire as a weapon, especially against diplomatic facilities, is not new. It was seen in the November 1979 sacking and burning of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in the April 1988 mob and arson attack against the U.S. Embassy annex in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. In February 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was heavily damaged when a mob lit its lobby on fire. More recently, on Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the Benghazi attack, millions of dollars' worth of damage was done at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, after a mob set outbuildings and vehicles ablaze. Fires set by demonstrators also caused extensive damage to the adjacent American school.

Fire has been used to attack non-diplomatic facilities as well. During the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the group of attackers holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel started fires in various parts of the hotel. Anarchists and radical environmental and animal rights activists have also conducted arson attacks against a variety of targets, including banks, department stores, the homes and vehicles of research scientists and even a ski resort.

Fire has also been a weapon frequently mentioned by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in its longstanding efforts to encourage Muslims living in the West to conduct simple attacks. In an interview featured in the first edition of Inspire magazine, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Nasir al-Wahayshi encouraged would-be jihadists to burn down forests and buildings as a way to strike terror into the hearts of their adversaries. This theme was expanded upon in Inspire magazine's ninth edition, which actually contained a photo tutorial on how to construct timed incendiary devices as well as a fatwa noting that it was religiously permissible to light forest fires as an act of war. It is suspected that Palestinian groups have also been responsible for a number of fires in Israel and the West Bank.

But fire is not a weapon to be used against only buildings and forests -- it can also be used to attack transportation targets. In March 2008, a Uighur separatist attempted to light a fire in the restroom of a China Southern Airlines flight from Urumqi to Beijing using two soft drink cans filled with gasoline that she had smuggled onto the flight. Fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft because of the oxygen-rich environment, the sensitive nature of avionic controls, the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the toxic smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make up a plane. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the September 1998 incident involving Swissair Flight 111, in which all 229 people aboard were killed after the crew was overcome by smoke, and the May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke inhalation.

Trains have also been targeted for arson. In August 2006, an attack against two German trains failed when the timed incendiary devices placed onboard failed to ignite. A February 2007 attack against a train in India proved far more deadly. Two timed incendiary devices placed aboard the Samjhauta Express killed 68 people and injured another 50. Two additional unignited devices were later found in other cars aboard the train. Had they functioned properly, the death toll would have been much higher.

Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed, they also have an advantage over explosive devices in that they can be constructed from readily available materials such as gasoline and kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound such as thermite can be easily obtained or even produced at home.

Another consideration is that quite often other forms of attacks, such as those using explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades or even tracer ammunition, can spark fires. Many of the victims of the July 7, 2005, London subway bombings were affected not by the bombs' blast effect but by the smoke from the resultant fires.Precautions

In addition to the threat of fire as a weapon or resulting from another form of attack, many deadly fires result each year from accidents or negligence. Such fires are deadly enough in the United States and Europe, where there are strict fire codes, but their impact is often magnified in less-developed countries, where fire codes are nonexistent or poorly enforced. For example, while sprinkler systems are mandatory for hotels in the United States, in many parts of the world they are not required.

When I was working on protective details overseas, I learned that it is not uncommon to find items stored in emergency stairwells, leaving them obstructed or sometimes impassable. It is also not unusual to find fire doors that have been chained shut due to the criminal threat.

One thing that can be done to mitigate the threat from fire is to check emergency exits to ensure that they are passable. This applies not only to hotels but also to apartment and even office buildings. In the August 2011 Casino Royale attack in Monterrey, Mexico, the attackers ordered the occupants out of the building before dousing it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, but 52 people died in the incident because they were trapped inside a building by a fire exit that had been chained and locked shut.

While we recommend that travelers staying at hotels overseas should attempt to stay above the second floor for security reasons, we also recommend that they not stay above the sixth floor so that they will be within range of most fire department rescue ladders. We also recommend checking that functional and tested fire extinguishers and fire hoses are present.

In fires, smoke inhalation is a huge problem. According to studies, it is the primary cause of fire deaths and accounts for some 50-80 percent of all deaths from indoor fires. While this is somewhat obvious in confined spaces such as an aircraft fuselage or a subway tunnel, it also applies to buildings. Even buildings that are constructed of concrete or cinderblock and would therefore seem to be resistant to the effects of fire can serve to confine smoke to deadly levels. The U.S. office in Benghazi is a very good recent example. Video of the building after the attack showed that the fire had not badly damaged the building's structure itself; what killed Stevens and Smith was the smoke.

As Stratfor has noted for many years now, smoke hoods are a very important piece of safety equipment and should be part of everyone's personal safety plan. Smoke hoods can be carried in a purse or briefcase and can provide the wearer with 15-30 minutes of safe air to breathe. This period of time can make a world of difference to a person caught in a burning building, subway tunnel or aircraft and attempting to escape to fresh air.

Due to past fire incidents on aircraft, the Federal Aviation Administration mandates that airlines furnish a smoke hood for each crew member on commercial flights. They do not provide smoke hoods for each passenger, although high-end executive aircraft normally do. Commercial passengers who would like access to a smoke hood in the case of a fire need to carry their own. Another useful tool in such situations is a small, high-intensity flashlight that can help you find your way through the smoke or dark once you have donned your smoke hood.

Fire is a potentially deadly weapon, one that should not be forgotten, but steps can be taken to mitigate the danger it poses.- See more at: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-overlooked-threat?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130228&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c5074c17e5124d5482581c8bfc1385d1#sthash.H84DV0xi.dpuf

Fire: The Overlooked Threat

By Scott StewartVice President of Analysis
People sometimes obsess over the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks that use things such as chemical weapons, electromagnetic pulses or dirty bombs. Yet
they tend to discount the less exciting but very real threat posed by
fire, even though fire kills thousands of people every year. The World
Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from
fire, while according to the Global Terrorism Database an average of
7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in
conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are also instances in which fire is used as a weapon in a
terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and embassy
communications officer Sean Smith, the two diplomats killed in the
attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, did not die
from gunfire or even rocket-propelled grenade strikes but from smoke
inhalation. This fact was not lost on the U.S. Department of State
Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack.
In an interview published by Reuters on Feb. 24, former Ambassador
Thomas Pickering, the head of the Accountability Review Board, said more
attention should be paid to the threat fire poses to diplomatic posts.
Fire can be deadly and destructive. But whether a fire is
intentionally set, as in the Benghazi example above, or is the result of
an accident or negligence, there are some practical steps individuals
can take to protect themselves.

Fire as a Weapon

The use of fire as a weapon, especially against diplomatic facilities, is not new. It was seen in the November 1979 sacking and burning of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in the April 1988 mob and arson attack against the U.S. Embassy annex in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. In February 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was heavily damaged
when a mob lit its lobby on fire. More recently, on Sept. 14, 2012,
three days after the Benghazi attack, millions of dollars' worth of
damage was done at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, after a mob set
outbuildings and vehicles ablaze. Fires set by demonstrators also caused
extensive damage to the adjacent American school.
Fire has been used to attack non-diplomatic facilities as well. During the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the group of attackers holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel started fires in various parts of the hotel. Anarchists and radical environmental and animal rights activists have also conducted arson attacks against a variety of targets, including banks, department stores, the homes and vehicles of research scientists and even a ski resort.
Fire has also been a weapon frequently mentioned by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in its longstanding efforts to encourage Muslims living in the West to conduct simple attacks. In an interview featured in the first edition of Inspire magazine,
al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Nasir al-Wahayshi encouraged
would-be jihadists to burn down forests and buildings as a way to strike
terror into the hearts of their adversaries. This theme was expanded
upon in Inspire magazine's ninth edition,
which actually contained a photo tutorial on how to construct timed
incendiary devices as well as a fatwa noting that it was religiously
permissible to light forest fires as an act of war. It is suspected that
Palestinian groups have also been responsible for a number of fires in
Israel and the West Bank.
But fire is not a weapon to be used against only buildings and
forests -- it can also be used to attack transportation targets. In
March 2008, a Uighur separatist attempted to light a fire
in the restroom of a China Southern Airlines flight from Urumqi to
Beijing using two soft drink cans filled with gasoline that she had
smuggled onto the flight. Fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft
because of the oxygen-rich environment, the sensitive nature of avionic
controls, the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the toxic
smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make
up a plane. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the
September 1998 incident involving Swissair Flight 111, in which all 229
people aboard were killed after the crew was overcome by smoke, and the
May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to
the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air
Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on
board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke
inhalation.
Trains have also been targeted for arson. In August 2006, an attack against two German trains failed when the timed incendiary devices placed onboard failed to ignite. A February 2007 attack against a train in India proved
far more deadly. Two timed incendiary devices placed aboard
the Samjhauta Express killed 68 people and injured another 50. Two
additional unignited devices were later found in other cars aboard the
train. Had they functioned properly, the death toll would have been much
higher.
Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed,
they also have an advantage over explosive devices in that they can be
constructed from readily available materials such as gasoline and
kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to
manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound such as thermite can be
easily obtained or even produced at home.
Another consideration is that quite often other forms of attacks,
such as those using explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades or even
tracer ammunition, can spark fires. Many of the victims of the July 7,
2005, London subway bombings were affected not by the bombs' blast
effect but by the smoke from the resultant fires.

Precautions

In addition to the threat of fire as a weapon or resulting from
another form of attack, many deadly fires result each year from
accidents or negligence. Such fires are deadly enough in the United
States and Europe, where there are strict fire codes, but their impact
is often magnified in less-developed countries, where fire codes are
nonexistent or poorly enforced. For example, while sprinkler systems are
mandatory for hotels in the United States, in many parts of the world
they are not required.
When I was working on protective details overseas, I learned that it
is not uncommon to find items stored in emergency stairwells, leaving
them obstructed or sometimes impassable. It is also not unusual to find
fire doors that have been chained shut due to the criminal threat.
One thing that can be done to mitigate the threat from fire is to
check emergency exits to ensure that they are passable. This applies not
only to hotels but also to apartment and even office buildings. In the
August 2011 Casino Royale attack in Monterrey, Mexico,
the attackers ordered the occupants out of the building before dousing
it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, but 52 people died in the
incident because they were trapped inside a building by a fire exit that
had been chained and locked shut.
While we recommend that travelers staying at hotels overseas should
attempt to stay above the second floor for security reasons, we also
recommend that they not stay above the sixth floor so that they will be
within range of most fire department rescue ladders. We also recommend
checking that functional and tested fire extinguishers and fire hoses
are present.
In fires, smoke inhalation is a huge problem. According to studies,
it is the primary cause of fire deaths and accounts for some 50-80
percent of all deaths from indoor fires. While this is somewhat obvious
in confined spaces such as an aircraft fuselage or a subway tunnel, it
also applies to buildings. Even buildings that are constructed of
concrete or cinderblock and would therefore seem to be resistant to the
effects of fire can serve to confine smoke to deadly levels. The U.S.
office in Benghazi is a very good recent example. Video of the building
after the attack showed that the fire had not badly damaged the
building's structure itself; what killed Stevens and Smith was the
smoke.
As Stratfor has noted for many years now, smoke hoods are a very important piece of safety equipment and should be part of everyone's personal safety plan. Smoke hoods can be carried
in a purse or briefcase and can provide the wearer with 15-30 minutes
of safe air to breathe. This period of time can make a world of
difference to a person caught in a burning building, subway tunnel or
aircraft and attempting to escape to fresh air.
Due to past fire incidents on aircraft, the Federal Aviation
Administration mandates that airlines furnish a smoke hood for each crew
member on commercial flights. They do not provide smoke hoods for each
passenger, although high-end executive aircraft normally do. Commercial
passengers who would like access to a smoke hood in the case of a fire
need to carry their own. Another useful tool in such situations is a
small, high-intensity flashlight that can help you find your way through
the smoke or dark once you have donned your smoke hood.
Fire is a potentially deadly weapon, one that should not be forgotten, but steps can be taken to mitigate the danger it poses.

- See more at:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-overlooked-threat?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130228&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c5074c17e5124d5482581c8bfc1385d1#sthash.H84DV0xi.dpuf

Fire: The Overlooked Threat

By Scott StewartVice President of Analysis
People sometimes obsess over the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks that use things such as chemical weapons, electromagnetic pulses or dirty bombs. Yet
they tend to discount the less exciting but very real threat posed by
fire, even though fire kills thousands of people every year. The World
Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from
fire, while according to the Global Terrorism Database an average of
7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in
conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are also instances in which fire is used as a weapon in a
terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and embassy
communications officer Sean Smith, the two diplomats killed in the
attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, did not die
from gunfire or even rocket-propelled grenade strikes but from smoke
inhalation. This fact was not lost on the U.S. Department of State
Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack.
In an interview published by Reuters on Feb. 24, former Ambassador
Thomas Pickering, the head of the Accountability Review Board, said more
attention should be paid to the threat fire poses to diplomatic posts.
Fire can be deadly and destructive. But whether a fire is
intentionally set, as in the Benghazi example above, or is the result of
an accident or negligence, there are some practical steps individuals
can take to protect themselves.

Fire as a Weapon

The use of fire as a weapon, especially against diplomatic facilities, is not new. It was seen in the November 1979 sacking and burning of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in the April 1988 mob and arson attack against the U.S. Embassy annex in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. In February 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was heavily damaged
when a mob lit its lobby on fire. More recently, on Sept. 14, 2012,
three days after the Benghazi attack, millions of dollars' worth of
damage was done at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, after a mob set
outbuildings and vehicles ablaze. Fires set by demonstrators also caused
extensive damage to the adjacent American school.
Fire has been used to attack non-diplomatic facilities as well. During the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the group of attackers holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel started fires in various parts of the hotel. Anarchists and radical environmental and animal rights activists have also conducted arson attacks against a variety of targets, including banks, department stores, the homes and vehicles of research scientists and even a ski resort.
Fire has also been a weapon frequently mentioned by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in its longstanding efforts to encourage Muslims living in the West to conduct simple attacks. In an interview featured in the first edition of Inspire magazine,
al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Nasir al-Wahayshi encouraged
would-be jihadists to burn down forests and buildings as a way to strike
terror into the hearts of their adversaries. This theme was expanded
upon in Inspire magazine's ninth edition,
which actually contained a photo tutorial on how to construct timed
incendiary devices as well as a fatwa noting that it was religiously
permissible to light forest fires as an act of war. It is suspected that
Palestinian groups have also been responsible for a number of fires in
Israel and the West Bank.
But fire is not a weapon to be used against only buildings and
forests -- it can also be used to attack transportation targets. In
March 2008, a Uighur separatist attempted to light a fire
in the restroom of a China Southern Airlines flight from Urumqi to
Beijing using two soft drink cans filled with gasoline that she had
smuggled onto the flight. Fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft
because of the oxygen-rich environment, the sensitive nature of avionic
controls, the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the toxic
smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make
up a plane. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the
September 1998 incident involving Swissair Flight 111, in which all 229
people aboard were killed after the crew was overcome by smoke, and the
May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to
the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air
Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on
board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke
inhalation.
Trains have also been targeted for arson. In August 2006, an attack against two German trains failed when the timed incendiary devices placed onboard failed to ignite. A February 2007 attack against a train in India proved
far more deadly. Two timed incendiary devices placed aboard
the Samjhauta Express killed 68 people and injured another 50. Two
additional unignited devices were later found in other cars aboard the
train. Had they functioned properly, the death toll would have been much
higher.
Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed,
they also have an advantage over explosive devices in that they can be
constructed from readily available materials such as gasoline and
kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to
manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound such as thermite can be
easily obtained or even produced at home.
Another consideration is that quite often other forms of attacks,
such as those using explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades or even
tracer ammunition, can spark fires. Many of the victims of the July 7,
2005, London subway bombings were affected not by the bombs' blast
effect but by the smoke from the resultant fires.

Precautions

In addition to the threat of fire as a weapon or resulting from
another form of attack, many deadly fires result each year from
accidents or negligence. Such fires are deadly enough in the United
States and Europe, where there are strict fire codes, but their impact
is often magnified in less-developed countries, where fire codes are
nonexistent or poorly enforced. For example, while sprinkler systems are
mandatory for hotels in the United States, in many parts of the world
they are not required.
When I was working on protective details overseas, I learned that it
is not uncommon to find items stored in emergency stairwells, leaving
them obstructed or sometimes impassable. It is also not unusual to find
fire doors that have been chained shut due to the criminal threat.
One thing that can be done to mitigate the threat from fire is to
check emergency exits to ensure that they are passable. This applies not
only to hotels but also to apartment and even office buildings. In the
August 2011 Casino Royale attack in Monterrey, Mexico,
the attackers ordered the occupants out of the building before dousing
it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, but 52 people died in the
incident because they were trapped inside a building by a fire exit that
had been chained and locked shut.
While we recommend that travelers staying at hotels overseas should
attempt to stay above the second floor for security reasons, we also
recommend that they not stay above the sixth floor so that they will be
within range of most fire department rescue ladders. We also recommend
checking that functional and tested fire extinguishers and fire hoses
are present.
In fires, smoke inhalation is a huge problem. According to studies,
it is the primary cause of fire deaths and accounts for some 50-80
percent of all deaths from indoor fires. While this is somewhat obvious
in confined spaces such as an aircraft fuselage or a subway tunnel, it
also applies to buildings. Even buildings that are constructed of
concrete or cinderblock and would therefore seem to be resistant to the
effects of fire can serve to confine smoke to deadly levels. The U.S.
office in Benghazi is a very good recent example. Video of the building
after the attack showed that the fire had not badly damaged the
building's structure itself; what killed Stevens and Smith was the
smoke.
As Stratfor has noted for many years now, smoke hoods are a very important piece of safety equipment and should be part of everyone's personal safety plan. Smoke hoods can be carried
in a purse or briefcase and can provide the wearer with 15-30 minutes
of safe air to breathe. This period of time can make a world of
difference to a person caught in a burning building, subway tunnel or
aircraft and attempting to escape to fresh air.
Due to past fire incidents on aircraft, the Federal Aviation
Administration mandates that airlines furnish a smoke hood for each crew
member on commercial flights. They do not provide smoke hoods for each
passenger, although high-end executive aircraft normally do. Commercial
passengers who would like access to a smoke hood in the case of a fire
need to carry their own. Another useful tool in such situations is a
small, high-intensity flashlight that can help you find your way through
the smoke or dark once you have donned your smoke hood.
Fire is a potentially deadly weapon, one that should not be forgotten, but steps can be taken to mitigate the danger it poses.

- See more at:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-overlooked-threat?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130228&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c5074c17e5124d5482581c8bfc1385d1#sthash.H84DV0xi.dpuf

Fire: The Overlooked Threat

By Scott StewartVice President of Analysis
People sometimes obsess over the potential threat posed by terrorist attacks that use things such as chemical weapons, electromagnetic pulses or dirty bombs. Yet
they tend to discount the less exciting but very real threat posed by
fire, even though fire kills thousands of people every year. The World
Health Organization estimates that 195,000 people die each year from
fire, while according to the Global Terrorism Database an average of
7,258 people die annually from terrorism, and that includes deaths in
conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are also instances in which fire is used as a weapon in a
terrorist attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and embassy
communications officer Sean Smith, the two diplomats killed in the
attack on the U.S. office in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, did not die
from gunfire or even rocket-propelled grenade strikes but from smoke
inhalation. This fact was not lost on the U.S. Department of State
Accountability Review Board that investigated the Benghazi attack.
In an interview published by Reuters on Feb. 24, former Ambassador
Thomas Pickering, the head of the Accountability Review Board, said more
attention should be paid to the threat fire poses to diplomatic posts.
Fire can be deadly and destructive. But whether a fire is
intentionally set, as in the Benghazi example above, or is the result of
an accident or negligence, there are some practical steps individuals
can take to protect themselves.

Fire as a Weapon

The use of fire as a weapon, especially against diplomatic facilities, is not new. It was seen in the November 1979 sacking and burning of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and in the April 1988 mob and arson attack against the U.S. Embassy annex in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. In February 2008, the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, was heavily damaged
when a mob lit its lobby on fire. More recently, on Sept. 14, 2012,
three days after the Benghazi attack, millions of dollars' worth of
damage was done at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia, after a mob set
outbuildings and vehicles ablaze. Fires set by demonstrators also caused
extensive damage to the adjacent American school.
Fire has been used to attack non-diplomatic facilities as well. During the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, the group of attackers holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel started fires in various parts of the hotel. Anarchists and radical environmental and animal rights activists have also conducted arson attacks against a variety of targets, including banks, department stores, the homes and vehicles of research scientists and even a ski resort.
Fire has also been a weapon frequently mentioned by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in its longstanding efforts to encourage Muslims living in the West to conduct simple attacks. In an interview featured in the first edition of Inspire magazine,
al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula leader Nasir al-Wahayshi encouraged
would-be jihadists to burn down forests and buildings as a way to strike
terror into the hearts of their adversaries. This theme was expanded
upon in Inspire magazine's ninth edition,
which actually contained a photo tutorial on how to construct timed
incendiary devices as well as a fatwa noting that it was religiously
permissible to light forest fires as an act of war. It is suspected that
Palestinian groups have also been responsible for a number of fires in
Israel and the West Bank.
But fire is not a weapon to be used against only buildings and
forests -- it can also be used to attack transportation targets. In
March 2008, a Uighur separatist attempted to light a fire
in the restroom of a China Southern Airlines flight from Urumqi to
Beijing using two soft drink cans filled with gasoline that she had
smuggled onto the flight. Fire is extremely dangerous aboard aircraft
because of the oxygen-rich environment, the sensitive nature of avionic
controls, the presence of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and the toxic
smoke that results from burning plastics and other materials that make
up a plane. Examples of deadly fires aboard aircraft include the
September 1998 incident involving Swissair Flight 111, in which all 229
people aboard were killed after the crew was overcome by smoke, and the
May 1996 ValuJet crash in the Florida Everglades. In a case similar to
the one at hand, a June 1983 fire that started in the restroom of Air
Canada Flight 797 resulted in the deaths of 23 of the 46 passengers on
board. Autopsies showed that most of them died as a result of smoke
inhalation.
Trains have also been targeted for arson. In August 2006, an attack against two German trains failed when the timed incendiary devices placed onboard failed to ignite. A February 2007 attack against a train in India proved
far more deadly. Two timed incendiary devices placed aboard
the Samjhauta Express killed 68 people and injured another 50. Two
additional unignited devices were later found in other cars aboard the
train. Had they functioned properly, the death toll would have been much
higher.
Incendiary devices are not only quite deadly if properly employed,
they also have an advantage over explosive devices in that they can be
constructed from readily available materials such as gasoline and
kerosene. Even the aluminum powder and iron oxide required to
manufacture a more advanced incendiary compound such as thermite can be
easily obtained or even produced at home.
Another consideration is that quite often other forms of attacks,
such as those using explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades or even
tracer ammunition, can spark fires. Many of the victims of the July 7,
2005, London subway bombings were affected not by the bombs' blast
effect but by the smoke from the resultant fires.

Precautions

In addition to the threat of fire as a weapon or resulting from
another form of attack, many deadly fires result each year from
accidents or negligence. Such fires are deadly enough in the United
States and Europe, where there are strict fire codes, but their impact
is often magnified in less-developed countries, where fire codes are
nonexistent or poorly enforced. For example, while sprinkler systems are
mandatory for hotels in the United States, in many parts of the world
they are not required.
When I was working on protective details overseas, I learned that it
is not uncommon to find items stored in emergency stairwells, leaving
them obstructed or sometimes impassable. It is also not unusual to find
fire doors that have been chained shut due to the criminal threat.
One thing that can be done to mitigate the threat from fire is to
check emergency exits to ensure that they are passable. This applies not
only to hotels but also to apartment and even office buildings. In the
August 2011 Casino Royale attack in Monterrey, Mexico,
the attackers ordered the occupants out of the building before dousing
it with gasoline and lighting it on fire, but 52 people died in the
incident because they were trapped inside a building by a fire exit that
had been chained and locked shut.
While we recommend that travelers staying at hotels overseas should
attempt to stay above the second floor for security reasons, we also
recommend that they not stay above the sixth floor so that they will be
within range of most fire department rescue ladders. We also recommend
checking that functional and tested fire extinguishers and fire hoses
are present.
In fires, smoke inhalation is a huge problem. According to studies,
it is the primary cause of fire deaths and accounts for some 50-80
percent of all deaths from indoor fires. While this is somewhat obvious
in confined spaces such as an aircraft fuselage or a subway tunnel, it
also applies to buildings. Even buildings that are constructed of
concrete or cinderblock and would therefore seem to be resistant to the
effects of fire can serve to confine smoke to deadly levels. The U.S.
office in Benghazi is a very good recent example. Video of the building
after the attack showed that the fire had not badly damaged the
building's structure itself; what killed Stevens and Smith was the
smoke.
As Stratfor has noted for many years now, smoke hoods are a very important piece of safety equipment and should be part of everyone's personal safety plan. Smoke hoods can be carried
in a purse or briefcase and can provide the wearer with 15-30 minutes
of safe air to breathe. This period of time can make a world of
difference to a person caught in a burning building, subway tunnel or
aircraft and attempting to escape to fresh air.
Due to past fire incidents on aircraft, the Federal Aviation
Administration mandates that airlines furnish a smoke hood for each crew
member on commercial flights. They do not provide smoke hoods for each
passenger, although high-end executive aircraft normally do. Commercial
passengers who would like access to a smoke hood in the case of a fire
need to carry their own. Another useful tool in such situations is a
small, high-intensity flashlight that can help you find your way through
the smoke or dark once you have donned your smoke hood.
Fire is a potentially deadly weapon, one that should not be forgotten, but steps can be taken to mitigate the danger it poses.

- See more at:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/fire-overlooked-threat?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130228&utm_term=sweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=c5074c17e5124d5482581c8bfc1385d1#sthash.H84DV0xi.dpuf

RSIS presents the following commentary Japan-Philippine Relations: New Dynamics in Strategic Partnership by Julius Cesar I. Trajano. It is also available online at this link. (To print it, click on this link.). Kindly forward anycomments or feedback to the Editor RSIS Commentaries, atRSISPublication@ntu.edu.sg

No. 037/2013 dated 28 February 2013

Japan-Philippine Relations:New Dynamics in Strategic Partnership

By Julius Cesar I. Trajano

Synopsis

Japan
and the Philippines have reinvigorated their security cooperation with
new joint initiatives. The vibrancy of their partnership is influenced
by the perception of a common security threat from China and domestic
political and economic concerns.

Commentary

JAPAN
AND the Philippines have recently taken joint initiatives in security
cooperation that reinvigorate their strategic partnership. Seven decades
after Japan’s invasion of the archipelago, Tokyo announced a donation
of 10 brand-new patrol ships to the Philippine Coast Guard - an
unprecedented initiative reflecting a renewed vibrancy in
Japan-Philippines bilateral ties.

Also, Japanese and Filipino
diplomats and maritime officials met in Manila on 22 February 2013 to
discuss maritime cooperation in the South China Sea, maritime security
and safety, anti-piracy measures, fisheries and marine scientific
research. The patrol vessels, each costing one billion yen (USD 11
million) vividly indicate how the former wartime enemies have become
allies.China as an existential threat

The
reinvigoration of their bilateral relations in recent years is driven
by two key factors: their common perception on China as an existential
threat; and domestic political and economic considerations by the
Philippine government. With the return of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to
power, Japan is making its own ‘pivot’ to Southeast Asia and the
Philippines can play a vital role in Japan’s nascent realignment.
Meanwhile, the Philippines is bolstering partnerships with its regional
allies, including Japan, to strengthen its defence capabilities.

The
joint initiatives to revitalise their security cooperation are in
response to Beijing’s assertiveness in the East and South China seas.
China is challenging Japanese sovereignty over Senkaku/Diaoyu and has
now the de facto control over the Philippine-claimed Scarborough Shoal.

During
talks in Manila last January, the foreign ministers of Japan and the
Philippines expressed “mutual concern” over China’s increasing
assertiveness in staking its territorial claims. The Philippine
government would staunchly back a rearmed Japan shorn of its pacifist
constitution as a significant balancing factor in the Asia-Pacific.
President Benigno Aquino stated that a stronger Japan can challenge the
“threatening” presence of China in the region.

The transfer of
new patrol boats, expected to be delivered within 18 months, can be
perceived as a shot in the arm for the Philippines. Even though it will
not unduly tilt the naval balance in the South China Sea it will
nonetheless boost the Philippines’ maritime domain awareness and advance
Japan’s strategic overtures in Southeast Asia.

The Philippines
Coast Guard can help Japan by monitoring China’s maritime activities in
the South China Sea. For Japan, the South China Sea is a test case of
how China would behave in the Senkaku/Diaoyu dispute. Moreover, Japan
sees that by increasing the number of available vessels that the
Philippines can use in securing its territorial claims, the attention
and resources of Chinese maritime agencies will be potentially divided
between the East and South China seas.

Enhancing the
capability of ill-equipped Philippine maritime agencies will also enable
them to contribute to the protection of freedom of navigation in the
South China Sea, including the unhindered flow of Japanese maritime
traffic.

Manila’s political and economic interestsThe
burgeoning Japan-Philippines partnership should also be assessed within
the broader context of the Philippines’ effort to internationalise the
South China Sea disputes. The Philippines has consistently sought wider
support from its allies in dealing with China’s assertiveness. Manila
has also brought territorial disputes with Beijing to an Arbitration
Tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

While
the strategic impact of the ‘China factor’ is crucial, the political
and economic considerations of the Aquino administration likewise shape
the current contours of the Philippines-Japan strategic ties. As Japan
ably exercises its ‘soft-power’ in an effort to raise its profile in the
Asia-Pacific, the Philippines benefits from Japan’s soft power
diplomacy.

Being the world’s third largest economy, Japan is
highly considered by the Aquino administration as a major driver of the
Philippines’ economic growth. Although China is ASEAN’s biggest trading
partner, Japan is the Philippines’ number one trade partner with total
trade exceeding US$13 billion last year. Japan also remains the
Philippines’ top export market and primary source of approved
investments, comprising around 35% of the total foreign direct
investments (US$1.5 billion) in 2012.

Unlike his predecessor
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President Aquino has appeared to be less
receptive to Beijing's dangled commercial incentives. Elected on an
anti-corruption platform, President Aquino cancelled certain
Chinese-funded projects which were marred by irregularities. While
Manila is currently repaying a concessional Chinese loan for a
now-scuttled railway project, Tokyo is generously extending official
development assistance (ODA) to support President Aquino’s big-ticket
infrastructure projects.

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida
recently announced that his government will provide loans for the MRT
extension and airport construction projects of the Aquino
administration. Japanese loans had the highest share (36.7%) of total
ODA commitments from January to September 2012, with a total amount of
US$3.24 billion.

Japan’s soft power in Mindanao

Assistance
for Mindanao is one of the three main pillars of Japan’s ODA for the
Philippines. As President Aquino views a final peace agreement with
Muslim rebels as his key legacy, Japan significantly contributes to the
Mindanao peace process through development projects. The
Japan-Bangsamoro Initiatives for Reconstruction and Development has
already implemented socio-economic infrastructure projects amounting to
US$136 million. Japan is also a member of both the International
Monitoring Team and the International Contact Group as an observer in
the peace talks.

Indeed, the convergence of threat perception
determines the depth of security cooperation between Tokyo and Manila.
But domestic political and economic concerns have also influenced
Manila’s receptivity to Tokyo’s soft power diplomacy and strategic
overtures. More important to Manila is that the bilateral engagement has
gone beyond platitudes and rhetoric as it receives enormous investments
and ODA from Tokyo.

Nevertheless while the Philippines-Japan
strategic partnership is strengthening, both countries will not easily
find equanimity as China will hardly be intimidated by their
reinvigorated alliance. Julius
Cesar I. Trajano is a Senior Analyst at S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.

U.S.
politicians have cried wolf over austerity long enough for the public
to ignore them. A perfect time, then, for politicians to actually
unleash the wolves. Barring an unlikely last minute deal, here’s a short
list of some of the massive, national bi-partisan-created austerity
cuts, according to the New York Times:

And this is just for 2013. The
current plan for the austerity “sequester” cuts is $100 billion of
federal cuts every year for ten years, equaling massive cuts to jobs,
Medicare, education, and completely destroying federally funded social
programs.

“In private, Capitol Hill staff members and members of
Congress have admitted that there are no viable plans on the horizon to
delay or offset the cuts.”

The finger pointing in
Washington, D.C. has already reached a crescendo, with the perverted
logic being that, if both parties are to blame, it’s really no one’s
fault. In reality Democrats and Republicans created these “sequester”
cuts, and they can just as easily undo them with a snap of the
finger.Both parties are choosing not to delete the cuts. They just don’t
want political responsibility for the fallout, which many economists
have predicted will push the U.S. economy over the edge into official recession.

Obama has predictably blamed
the Republicans for this mess, even though he personally began this
process by creating the “deficit reduction commission” that helped shape
the cuts (keep in mind there is zero debt crisis that calls for such
drastic measures).

Obama could also just as easily appeal to the American public —over
the heads of congressmen — to demand that the cuts be shelved forever.
Instead, he’s proposing a “grand bargain” deal that he knows the
Republicans won’t go for.

-$130 billion in “savings” [cuts] to Social Security, by implementing a “superlative CPI.”

-$35 billion in “savings” [cuts] to the retirement of federal employees.

- $400 billion in health care “savings” [cuts], much of it Medicare cuts.

Obama cynically fails to
mention the words Social Security or Medicare in the above plan,
choosing instead to write in code (“superlative Consumer Price Index”).
Obama’s plan to avoid the March 1st cuts still assumes that $500 billion
in cuts will be implemented over the next ten years, as opposed to
$1trillion.

But his plan is just a distraction. Obama knows his plan has no
chance of being passed by March 1st. He’s falsely portraying his plan as
the only alternative to the March 1st cuts, even though a far better
idea — the one preferred by a vast majority of Americans — is to simply
to shelve the sequester cuts forever. To not put forth this option makes
Obama complicit in the cuts.

Many pundits have speculated
that Congress will allow the cuts to go into effect for three weeks,
since March 27th marks a fiscal deadline that will pressure Congress to
maneuver anew. This might trigger a new round of haggling over a new
“grand bargain” that again targets “entitlement programs” and
re-packages the massive cuts into a prettier box. The party that does
the most effective finger pointing after the March 1st cuts will be in
the best position to dictate matters post-March 27th, so say the
pundits.

Whatever the actual result, the Democrats and Republicans share
similar enough visions that massive cuts to cherished social programs
appear to be inevitable. Much of the made-for-TV bickering is pure
political posturing, meant to fool the working people most affected by
these cuts into believing it’s “the other party” that’s responsible.

Politicians have been able to get away with this disgusting
behavior because there are very few independent voices telling the truth
about what’s happening. Many labor and progressive groups are
consciously lying about the dynamic, placing blame squarely on the
Republicans, thus allowing the Democrats not to be held accountable for
their pandering to the corporate elite’s demand to use austerity to
attack the social safety net. In reality both parties are jointly
attacking working and poor people via austerity, on a city, state, and
national level.

If Labor and community groups united in a demand of ‘No Cuts, Tax
the Rich’ and organized massive mobilizations, there would be a very
different public debate happening right now. It’s not too late for these
groups to tear themselves from the jaws of their attackers.

After many years of peaceful agreements and conflict resolution
attitudes from the ASEAN free trade area countries, 2012 was filled with
heated discussions and humiliating summit meetings. The core of all
these disagreements was the South China Sea conflict. The islands
situated in this territory called the “cow’s tongue” are rich in natural
resources, trade routes, and have been military strategic points for
several years. The fact that China claims sovereignty over this
territory has raised many concerns among the neighboring countries, with
the Philippines and Vietnam being the strongest opponents. In addition
to these disputes, the U.S. has started a “pivot” military strategy
towards Asia, increasing tension in the area. Will this divide the ASEAN
countries and start a new conflict?
The South China Sea is about 1.4 million square miles of the Pacific
Ocean, and it is one of the most profitable fishing spots in the world.
It consists of hundred islands, most of which are uninhabited, making
the conflict even more difficult to solve. Who has sovereignty over
these islands? It is not an issue limited to land, but also to natural
resources. Each country in the region has an Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) determined in 1982 by the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that
includes 200 nautical miles from the coast of each nation’s territory.
The UNCLOS recognizes the “common heritage of the world’s oceans” and
with a set of laws defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in
their use of the oceans. The law is not clear, however, on the matter
of islands.
With increasing international trade coming from Asia’s
industrialization and the oil imports, the South China Sea has become a
major economic hub. “Just more than half of the top ten shipping
container shipping ports are located in or around the South China Sea”
according to David Rosenberg, professor of political science at
Middlebury College. It is very important, therefore, that this remains a
free access territory, where no restrictions are imposed where commerce
can continue freely.
Furthermore, the rapid urbanization of coastal cities in China has
fostered huge competition over the resources. The resources are scarce,
and in order to continue growing and developing, China needs as many as
they can obtain. But the South China Sea has oil reserves that could be
an interesting opportunity for other rapidly emerging economies such as
the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. Some countries -Vietnam with the
collaboration with India and China-have already started cooperating with
other nations in order to develop oil in disputed waters angering those
left out.
Other confrontations that have taken place are related to the
interception of illegal fishing vessels in the region. The Philippines
claimed that eight Chinese fishing vessels were caught illegally in
their waters. This is one of the greatest potential conflicts, since 1.5
million people in the area depend on fishing and due to
overexploitation in the South China Sea’s overlapping water territories.

The HQ of the ASEAN free trade area in Jakarta. Image: wikimedia commons

These disputes are of great importance for the ASEAN countries, which
are in need of resources to continue growing, but also for other high
income countries. The fact that it is one of the busiest international
sea-lanes, and a strategic link between the Pacific and Indian Ocean,
intensifies the need for the region not to close its waters. The U.S.
has stated its intentions of making a “pivot” movement – a shift of
their forces and strategy – towards Asia, and this conflict is putting a
lot of pressure on the emerging economic power. Vietnam and the
Philippines have asked the U.S. to increase its presence in order to
counterbalance China’s rising economic power. The latter even doubled
its defense budget in 2011 and considered a five-year joint military
exercise plan with the U.S. Despite pressure from some Asian countries
for more American presence, other countries believe that they should
reduce their influence on the region. In particular, China is insisting
on bilateral agreements, while rejecting any of the UN mechanisms for
arbitration as well as the ASEAN countries cooperation with external
actors. These bilateral agreements entail cooperation of the countries
that are affected by the conflict in making arrangements on territorial
issues. The problem here is that China has greater power than the other
emergent countries, and these fear an unjust territorial distribution.
Unlike NATO for developed countries, ASEAN countries do not have any
military cooperation, so it will be difficult for solutions to arise
since each country will defend its own interest. With the emerging
conflict, fears of a new “Cold War” in Asia have started to materialise.
Experts, however, believe that common interests between the Asian
nations arising from economic integration will provide an incentive to
harmonize the management of the resources and resolve the other
conflicts. China and Vietnam, for example, have started to cooperate on a
common fishery zone. Is this enough to start resolving the conflicts?
One can only hope that the ASEAN cooperate more enthusiastically again
and find a solution to the sovereignty problems in the South China Sea
so that the development of the region can continue unabated.

In his Facebook wall, Cotabato-based Fr. Eliseo Mercado of the
Institute for Autonomy and Governance in Notre Dame University yesterday
said, “After the President’s press statement on the Sabah issue, I am
continued to be deluged with question,’Who is the adviser of the
President on the Sabah issue?’
“Sagot ko: Ambot… baka ang Malaysian PM. From the tone and the
content would show that he/she is either Malaysian or
Malaysian-Philippine.”
In his statement, which came on the second week of the standoff in
Lahad Datu, a seaside village in Sabah, President Aquino several times
spoke of peace. Yet, the language he used reeks of arrogance that could
only come from ignorance of the root of the issue.
He described the cause that the Sultan of Sulu Jamalul Kiram III and
his younger brother Prince Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram, who is the
leader of the group in Lahad Datu as a “hopeless cause.”
Addressing Kiram, Aquino said: “You are a leader of your clan, and
every leader seeks the well-being of his constituents. These times
require you to use your influence to prevail on our countrymen to desist
from this hopeless cause.”
Does this mean the Aquino government has given up the Philippine government’s claim on Sabah?
In his statement, Aquino seemed not sure about the legitimacy of the
Philippine claim which was initiated in the 1963 by President Diosdado
Macapagal. He said: “This issue is complex: from the basis of our claim,
to the question of the rightful heirs, and even involving the
translation of documents from an era when our grandparents weren’t even
born.”

Princess Jacel Kiram reads statement of her father, Jamalul Kiram III

Responding to the President’s statement Kiram III, though his
daughter Princess Jacel Kiram said: “ Mr. President, what more proof do
you want us to show that Sabah is ours?”
This standoff came about because the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu
decided to do it their way after Malacañang snubbed Kiram’s request for a
meeting.
Aquino revealed this in his statement: “Let me say to Sultan Jamalul
Kiram III: I have just been made aware that a letter to me, from you,
was sent through OPAPP in the very first weeks of my term, when we were
organizing the government. Unfortunately, this letter was lost in the
bureaucratic maze. Let me make clear that there was no intention to
ignore your letter. Knowing this now, will you let your mistaken belief
dictate your course of action?”
Aquino also said, “The avenue of peaceful and open dialogue is still
available to us. Let us therefore sit down as brothers to address your
grievances in a peaceful, calm manner according to our laws and
according to correct processes when your people arrive home.”
Yet in the same statement he warned Kiram that his patience is running out:
“As President and chief executor of our laws, I have tasked an
investigation into possible violations of laws by you, your followers,
and collaborators engaged in this foolhardy act. May I remind you as
well that as a citizen of the Republic, you are bound by the
constitution and its laws.
“Among your possible violations is Article II Section 2 of the
Constitution, which states that the Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, the enabling law of which is Article 118
of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes those who “provoke or give
occasion for a war…or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their
persons or property.”[1] Thus, you are now fully aware of the
consequences of your actions.”
“We have not yet reached the point of no return, but we are fast approaching that point.”
To which Kiram stood firm: “As far as we are concerned, we haven’t committed a crime.”
But he also talked about peace: “The sultan of Sulu’s action is a benevolent aspiration and not a violent reaction to fight.”
Will the real diplomats please take over?

The following link is a 25 minute video
titled: "Hyperinflation: A Graphic Presentation by Dennis
Small."

I strongly encourage you to watch it and circulate it widely.It
demonstrates with graphics the fact that the "quantitative easing" in the US
(and similarly in Europe) has done nothing but pump more than $3.5
trillion dollars into the banking system, mostly to bail out nearly
worthless derivatives, while the banks have loaned out $1 trillion LESS during
the same period, and killer austerity has been imposed on the populations of the
trans-Atlantic region. That mass of phoney, printed money is now beginning
to flood out into the real economy, with a hyperinflation which will wipe
out the savings, wages, and the very lives of millions. Nothing short of a
Glass Steagall reorganization can prevent this already
unfolding disaster. Mike Billington

On February 15th, Lyndon LaRouche in his Friday
webcast,stated emphatically, that the options facing the United
Statesand the world, were "Glass-Steagall, or Die!``
-Glass-Steagall, or genocide. And he went on to explain
morespecifically, that a process of hyperinflationary explosion hatbeen
unleashed, of such proportions, that not only was there noway to maintain
that fictitious bubble, but furthermore, thatgrowing layers in the British
imperial faction running today'ssystem had become aware of the fact that
this was not the case,and that therefore, what was in the works, what was
comingon-line - regardless of whether those responsible were
actuallyaware of it - was a situation, where they would be replacing
theexisting financial system, the existing money in
circulation,collapsing it down to zero, writing it off, and simply, from
oneday to the next, issuing new currency - which they also control -for
the purpose of using that money and that credit, only fortheir chosen few,
their select few. And the rest of the world,and the rest of the financial
system be damned. The consequences of this would be - as has
occurredpreviously in history - a massive deflationary collapse: a
freefall, like in an elevator (I hope it's never happened to you),and
the thing simply collapses down to the ground. Under thoseconditions of a
massive deflationary collapse, what would happenas a consequence, would be
that, the physical economy wouldplunge down at a rate even exceeding current
rates, to asituation where the population of the world - as per
theactually intention of the British Empire - from some sevenbillion
today, down to the range of one billion. One of the indications of a
certain awareness of theproblem, came interestingly at right about the same
time, fromone of the world's leading sponsors of the cancer that
hasactually taken over the financial system. I'm referring to BillGross
- aptly named - head of a company called PIMCO - also quiteaptly named -,
which is the world's largest bond-trading company.What happened is that Bill
Gross wrote an article named "CreditSupernova``, which became somewhat of a
scandal in informed mediaand circles in Washington and elsewhere, because
what he stated,is that the entire world financial system had become
aself-consuming firestorm, where you had to feed in more and
morefinancial instruments, simply to maintain $1 in output of GDP.The
way he formulated it was a little bit strange, which is thatit took,
for example back in the 1970s/1980s, $4 of debt to``produce a dollar of
GDP'', and of course I beg to differ whichthat verb, because the debt does
not produce the GDP. Butnonetheless, what he was looking at, was the
relationship ofgrowing indebtedness - of US debt - and a flat
GDP. Mr' Gross' graphic, is one that we have available here,which
he called, that of the ``exploding supernova''. What heshows here, simply,
is the rapid growth of total US credit, whichincludes household, corporate
and government debt, rising fromsome $4 trillion dollars back in the 1975
period, up to about$55-$60 trillion today. His explanation is - as you can
see fromthis - whereas it would take $4 of the debt in 1975 per unit
ofGDP, it's now in the range of $20. And he described this as acredit
supernova. Now, the fact of the matter is that, althoughGross' argument is
interesting, and points in the direction of aproblem, it actually vastly
understates the nature of thehyperinflationary bubble which has been built
and is in theprocess of exploding, today. It is a hyperinflation which has
infact run amok. We have developed the following graphic, just to
give anidea to you, of just how much worse it is, that even
Gross'estimation. [And this] is also clear from Gross' own discussionof
the matter, because in a footnote to his article he states,that he was
excluding from consideration in the figures, what hecalls ``shadow debt''.
Now, ``shadow debt'' is in fact areference to the existence of an enormous
bubble of financialaggregates - of derivatives in particular - which have
grown morerapidly than the debt has grown, which has grown more
rapidlythan the GDP. In other words, the rate of increase of
thefinancial aggregates has been greater by an order of magnitude,even
than the figures Mr. Gross chose to present. And what wehave here, as you
can see in the this graphic representation, theblue line, which is down near
the x-axis - which I showed youearlier, which is Gross' relationship of
debt-to-GDP - but likethey say, ``that ain't nothin'''. You need to look at
thetotality of world financial aggregates, which is
principallyderivatives, i.e. bets, on bets, on bets. [These have] grown
inthe ratio of those aggregates to the GDP not five-fold, as theGross
number on the debt indicates, but has actually grownfifty-fold, over this
period. [This means], that today you have$500 of debt per unit of
GDP. Now, what you've got is a situation which has in fact
spuncompletely out of control. First of all, let me point yourattention
to what the composition is of those world
financialaggregates. You'll notice, that these numbers only go
through 2005,which is the last time we did a detailed calculation of this,
butthe total world financial aggregates at that time, were close toone
quadrillion dollars, which is 1,000 trillion dollars - whichis as
meaningless, actually, as the total aggregates themselves.But the point that
I want to get to here, is that the actualpicture of world financial
aggregates, is not made up,principally, by the stock market - as overvalued
as that is -,it's not made up, principally, by the debt (which is what
Grosswas looking at) of the United States, or of all the countries ofthe
Third World, or all of the other direct debt. The Lion'sShare of the whole
thing, are financial derivatives. Now, what's a derivative? Good
question! Derivatives havebeen described, I believe accurately, as,
essentially, a way tolie and cover up about a loss, which you have
suffered,financially. So, rather than saying, ``Oh my gosh, I'm
bankrupt,I can't pay that debt'', what you say instead is, ``no, I'll
makeanother debt, to cover that loss, in the hopes that eventually
Iwon't have to pay that increased loss coming from the derivativesbet.''
So, another way of describing derivatives, is, theperennial gambler - who's
always losing at the Roulette table -and rather than pay up and call it a
day, he says, ``no, let'splay double-or-nothing!'' And he loses again, and
rather than payhe says, ``no, double-or-nothing!'' Derivatives are
adouble-or-nothing approach to the massive losses which are
beingsuffered throughout the economy. And that is the nature of
thefinancial aggregates which have grown, and which constitute
theexplosive charge of this hyperinflationary situation run amok,which
Mr. LaRouche has been talking about. Now, let me just say, that the
usual definitions ofinflation are complete poppycock - it's nonsense.
Especially ifyou've studied economics, because what they tell you there,
isthat there's different kinds of inflation. Inflation, they say,is more
money chasing fewer goods - which is ridiculous; that'snot where it comes
from. Or they say, there's ``cost-pushinflation.'' What they mean by
cost-push inflation is that theyblame the rise on prices, on the wages being
paid to workers, andthat that cost is supposedly pushing the inflation. So
that'sjust a transparent excuse for trying to cut wages further.
Thenthere's ``demand-pull inflation''. If you can understand thatyou'll
earn at least one or two degrees in economics, andunderstand absolutely
nothing. ``Demand-pull,'' as far as I'mconcerned, is basically the
economists who are pulling your leg,to try to make you understand that
something is going on here.That's not what is actually going
on. Nor should people try to locate the process ofhyperinflation
today in a simple expression, such as, risingprices on the consumer market.
It does show there too. You dosee, that on Obama's watch, that the price of
gasoline at thepump has doubled. You do see it in food prices at
thesupermarket, also soaring. Because this financial bubble
getstranslated into the consumer economy, through speculation
inderivatives in the future market, in commodities, and so on and
soforth. But, what is actually going on with the
hyperinflation,people should think of it rather as a huge pressure-cooker.
Andwhat's going on, is that the hyperinflation is occurring
withinthe financial aggregates themselves. You can see that, forexample,
in this growth here. But it's a pressure-cooker which isbuilding up and it's
going to blow to smithereens, at which pointyou'll see the transfer of this
thing out into all differentareas of the economy. Right now, what you have
is the rapidlyescalating - hyperbolically escalating - financial
aggregates,circulating on the basis of absolutely nothing, increasing on
thebasis of the double-or-nothing principle, of covering up
losses. But the real problem of hyperinflation, occurs when
youactually go and look at what Lyndon LaRouche developed as
apedagogical way of understanding the process in the economy, hisfamous
typical collapse function, or ``triple curve.'' [You seeit] on the screen
now. Now, really the only surprise in what BillGross said, was that people
were surprised about it, becauseLyndon LaRouche developed this
representation back in 1995-96. Sothis is almost two decades old: LaRouche
talking about thisexplosive charge within the global financial system, that
at somepoint was going to blow sky-high, and this was a heuristic
modelwhich he developed, for presentation at a conference which
headdressed in the Vatican, back in that period, in the
mid-1990s. Now, on the Triple Curve function. The thing that's
mostrelevant here - and where I think the part where people have themost
difficulty in understanding what LaRouche is getting at - ,is you're looking
at a single unified process, not threeseparate distinct curves. A single
unified process, where youhave the growth of the financial aggregates, the
growth ofmonetary aggregates - which, at a certain point, the rate
ofgrowth exceeds the growth of the financial aggregates, if you'vegot a
cancerous bubble developing, as we have today - and, mindyou, let me just
clarify. What we're showing you is not anincrease in absolute amounts, this
is the rate of change: therate of growth of the monetary aggregates exceeds
the rate ofgrowth of the financial aggregates, because it's
simplyrequired to keep this double-or-nothing bubble growing. But
thecrucial figure - and this is where LaRouche's economics isabsolutely
singular - is understanding the relationship of thisto the third, lower
curve of physical economic input/output. The problem of hyperinflation
is not too much money chasingtoo few goods. This has nothing to do with GDP
or gross domesticproduct, because GDP does not reflect the actual
physicaleconomy. GDP is a monetary calculation based on basically
whatthe market will bear, in other words whatever sells. Andtherefore
you have, for example, the International Monetary Fundstating explicitly, in
published documents, that their argumentis that drug production in countries
such as Colombia must beincluded in the calculation of gross domestic
product, because itsells! If it sells, somebody wants it, that's called
effectivedemand, and therefore it's gotta be counted in GDP. So,
GDP is a completely phony measure; it's phony not onlybecause its content
includes actually unproductive anddestructive things such as, for example,
drug production or, forexample, payments made to the economics profession
for teachingat universities - that's almost as destructive as, maybemore
so, than the drugs, because it justifies the drugs in pointof fact - but
it's also false in it's axiomatics. The premise ofthe whole thing it that
there's a one-to-one monetary calculationthat can be made, a monetary unit
of account that can be used todescribe an economy, a physical economy, where
what actually isinvolved in a physical economy, what is really the metric
that'sneeded, against which you have a hyper-inflationary blowoutgoing,
is the expansion of the productive powers of labor. The crucial
question in the success or failure of a physicaleconomy is the degree to
which your policies increase theproductive powers of labor, that is to
say, the efficiency ofman's general activity based on creative advances,
science andtechnology, to be able to mobilize an increasingly
denseenergy-flux, in other words growing energy flux density, throughthe=2

About Me

ROLAND SAN JUAN was a researcher, management consultant, inventor, a part time radio broadcaster and a publishing director. He died last November 25, 2008 after suffering a stroke. His staff will continue his unfinished work to inform the world of the untold truths. Please read Erick San Juan's articles at: ericksanjuan.blogspot.com This blog is dedicated to the late Max Soliven, a FILIPINO PATRIOT.
DISCLAIMER - We do not own or claim any rights to the articles presented in this blog. They are for information and reference only for whatever it's worth. They are copyrighted to their rightful owners.
************************************
Please listen in to Erick San Juan's daily radio program which is aired through DWSS 1494khz AM @ 5:30pm, Mondays through Fridays, R.P. time, with broadcast title, “WHISTLEBLOWER” the broadcast tackle current issues, breaking news, commentaries and analyses of various events of political and social significance.
***************************************
LIVE STREAMING
http://www.dwss-am1494khz.blogspot.com